Friday, November 25, 2011

Female Journalists Sexually Assaulted in Egypt

EGYPT--Two female foreign journalists on Thursday described harrowing sexual assaults carried out by crowds or police as they tried to cover demonstrations in Cairo's Tahrir Square.

Egyptian-American journalist Mona Eltahawy said she was sexually assaulted by police during hours under detention after taking part in protests on the sprawling square that has become a landmark of the Arab Spring.

"Besides beating me, the dogs of (central security forces) subjected me to the worst sexual assault ever," Eltahawy said on her Twitter account.

"5 or 6 surrounded me, groped and prodded my breasts, grabbed my genital area and I lost count how many hands tried to get into my trousers," she said.

"My left arm and right hand are broken (according) to xrays," she said, posting pictures of herself in casts.

Earlier Eltahawy, an award-winning journalist and public speaker on Arab and Muslim issues based in New York, tweeted that she had been released after having been beaten and arrested in the interior ministry building.

Later, a French journalist working for public television channel France 3, said she had been violently beaten and sexually assaulted while covering the protests.

Caroline Sinz told AFP that she and her cameraman, Salah Agrabi, had been confronted in a road leading from Tahrir to the interior ministry, the scene of days of deadly clashes between police and protesters demanding democratic change.

"We were filming in Mohammed Mahmud street when we were mobbed by young people who were about 14 or 15," said Sinz.

The journalist and her cameraman were then dragged by a group of men towards Tahrir Square where they became separated, she said.

"We were then assaulted by a crowd of men. I was beaten by a group of youngsters and adults who tore my clothes" and then molested her in a way that "would be considered rape," she said.

"Some people tried to help me but failed. I was lynched. It lasted three quarters of an hour before I was taken out. I thought I was going to die," she said. Her cameraman was also beaten.

Sinz was finally rescued by a group of Egyptians and returned to her hotel, where she was assisted by the French embassy before being seen by a doctor.

Media activists from Reporters Without Borders decried working conditions for journalists covering the fresh unrest and upcoming elections in Egypt.

"The chaos prevailing in Cairo and the resulting grave human rights violations are as bad as in the darkest hours of the revolution's earlier phase, in January and February," the media rights group said in a statement.

In February, CBS News reporter Lara Logan described in detail how she was victim of a sexual assault near Tahrir the same day President Hosni Mubarak fell from power.

Once back in the US, Logan said she was molested for more than 40 minutes by a group of 200 or 300 men.

The latest reports of sexual assault against journalists came as protesters in Tahrir Square continue to demand an end to military rule. At least 38 people have died and over 3,000 have been injured since Saturday when the clashes began. (Source)

30 comments:

I don't understand why an American journalist (or an foreigner) would get involved with protesting in Egypt, given that he or she is an American and becomes an easy target for retaliation and abuse? If the woman is there as a journalist, why would she get involved in the protest and not stick to her journalism? I am wondering if the article made a mistake by saying that she took part in the protest.

Of course, if they had been covered this would never have happened. How can these westernized women expect these men to act civilized in these situations? Didn't these victims, oops I mean instigators, know that they were being unreasonable by being there and exposing themselves to these poor helpless men? Why weren't they in burqas? These women should be punished severely! Islam protects the sanctity of women!

Was wondering if anyone has watched the first couple of episodes of "All-American Muslim" on TLC..new series following I think 5 american muslim families..should be plenty of material in there..oh and its filmed in Dearborn.

" You just can't expect much more from reprobates who honor and use Mohammed the pedophile as a role model."

I was going to refrain from calling all of them Muslims; but, we know that Egypt is about 90% Muslim, I think. According to Islamic rule, Christians would have no part in the military, right? So, we can deduce that most likely all of those people were Muslims. Is that fair to deduce?

Whether they were Muslims or not, we should expect more occurrences like this in backward societies, shouldn't we?

If those men are muslims who did those acts, then I am very dissapointed and angry at them for doing that. However, I really don't understand how this brutal rape act by attacking and raping women has anything to do with the religion of Islam. If they claim to be muslim, and they commit acts like that, I would be very suspicious at the very least. Also, may God bless the rape victims and recompense them for the acts committed against them, ameen.

" If those men are muslims who did those acts, then I am very dissapointed and angry at them for doing that."

You should be. Humanity needs to respect each individual better than that. I would hope that conscientious people would agree.

"However, I really don't understand how this brutal rape act by attacking and raping women has anything to do with the religion of Islam."

Are you really serious? Egypt is ran by whom? Who is in power? Who makes up about 90% of the population. What religion is declared as the dominant religion? What can happen to non-Muslims who are causing mischief in Islamic lands? Protests are means of spreading mischief, you know?

"If they claim to be muslim, and they commit acts like that, I would be very suspicious at the very least."

Why? What did Mohammad allow his followers to do with female captives and people causing mischief? Exactly what would you be suspicious of?

"Also, may God bless the rape victims and recompense them for the acts committed against them, ameen."

Agreed! But, there are many ways to justify what these people did since they are non-Muslims and foreigners too. I am sure that they can find an hadith that will support their action(s)whether you agree with it or not.

Islam in no way allows rape my friend. The hadith that you bring up does not show whether rape was actually committed. Unless you can show that there was proof that it was not consensual sex, than you can throw your allegations out of the window. Read the hadith again, it does not explain whether the women were against having sex with the men or not. All you need to do search for truth is to bring one authentic hadith where the prophet (pbuh) allowed muslim men to have sex with women against their Will. Until than, muslims can be assured that rape is not allowed in Islam.

"Are you really serious? Egypt is ran by whom? Who is in power? Who makes up about 90% of the population. What religion is declared as the dominant religion? What can happen to non-Muslims who are causing mischief in Islamic lands? Protests are means of spreading mischief, you know?"

I said that I have no idea what this has to do with ISLAM, not the muslims who committed these acts. I am sure that you will agree with me that if we hypothetically took a poll of all the muslims living in northern Africa and the Middle East as to whether rape is allowed in Islam, the overwhelming majority would say no. I know muslims who drink wine, beer, and commit fornication, but that does not mean that Islam permits these acts. I think this all comes down to whether Islam actually allows men to rape women. I encourage you,and search for truth to find one authentic hadith that shows the allowance of rape. All you need to essentially find is a hadith showing women resisting sex with the muslim men, yet the muslim men were allowed to rape them. Don`t bring hadiths that do not explain whether the women accepted or not. Because, than we would never know, rather find a authentic hadith that leaves no wiggle room to this point.

They are doing what your prophet did and yes islam allows rape. Hopefully this will clear it up for you:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/rapist.htm

Look up the passages for yourself if it is "lies".

Also, it says that men can have 4 wives and as many sex slaves as their right hand possesses. How can you possibly believe that they would consent to that? How would you feel if women in your family were taken hostage and raped?

Mohammad and his companions murdered Sofia’s husband, father, and brother, and Mohammad raped her the self-same night. In fact, his companion had to stand guard outside the tent to ensure that Safia did not exact retribution while Mohammad fell asleep. Any unbiased person would conclude that Mohammad raped her.

Let us suppose that an Israeli soldier killed a Palestinian Muslim family (husband, father, brother) and had sex with the girl in the family the same night. Let us also suppose that the Israeli report does not state whether or not the girl objected to having sex with the murderer of her family. I hope you Muslims will apply the same criterion you apply to Mohammad and assert that since the report does not specify that the Muslim girl objected, it could not be rape. Perhaps the Muslim girl wanted to have sex with the murderer of her family—after all the report is silent as to whether she consented or not, just like the hadiths are.

Samatar, you can make these foolish arguments within the four walls of a madrassa or the living room of a Muslim household, and everyone would agree. However, when you make these asinine assertions outside the four walls of a madrassa, you display the utter vacuity of Islamic intelligence and reason.

" I said that I have no idea what this has to do with ISLAM, not the muslims who committed these acts."

OK.

"I am sure that you will agree with me that if we hypothetically took a poll of all the muslims living in northern Africa and the Middle East as to whether rape is allowed in Islam, the overwhelming majority would say no."

That would most likely be true if you are talking about some explicit hadith for raping. However, we see that in Islam, especially within the hadiths, indirect approval is given for certain things.

"I know muslims who drink wine, beer, and commit fornication, but that does not mean that Islam permits these acts."

Well, yes, I would agree. People can do things that go against the teachings of that ideology.

"I think this all comes down to whether Islam actually allows men to rape women."

Yes, it indirectly does.

"I encourage you,and search for truth to find one authentic hadith that shows the allowance of rape."

Right hand possessions.

As previously been stated to you in other blog topics, it is rather bizarre to think that recently captured women are going to be eager to have sex with their conquerors. Be honest with yourself and think for a moment. If some of your women relatives were captured and they had sex with the conquerors, would you think that they did it without some kind of force being applied? Do you think that those who conquered them are going to accept no for an answer if they refuse? Do you realize that conquered people are at the mercy of those who capture them? They are more often willing to do anything to stay alive. You will loose a lot of credibility if you can't at least recognize that the women are most likely to refuse if there is no threat that they are going to be harmed if they do refuse. If there is a great chance that they are going to be harmed, they are most likely to agree to stay alive. Just be honest.

"All you need to essentially find is a hadith showing women resisting sex with the muslim men, yet the muslim men were allowed to rape them."

Are you being stupid on purpose. Think for a moment that some of your female relatives are in that position and tell me if you will see the situation the same. As stated to you previously, do you see anywhere in the hadith where the women agreed without any concerns of retaliation for not having sex? The fact that Mohammad's followers were initially reluctant to engage with the women should tell you something about the situation wasn't morally right.

"Don`t bring hadiths that do not explain whether the women accepted or not."

Do you realize that the women were in no position to dictate any rules. The Muslim men were in a superior position and the women were in a submissive position. Do you really think that if the women refused that that would stop the Muslim men, especially if they hadn't had sex in weeks or months? Be honest for once, will you?

"Because, than we would never know, rather find a authentic hadith that leaves no wiggle room to this point."

Why are you still trying to defend right hand possessions when you know in the back of your mind that having sex with those you captured immediately after you capture them is rape. Maybe if you waited a few weeks or months and the women finally accepted their situation could you perhaps have a point. The immediacy of the situation is too much to overcome in trying to justify that it was not rape. How do you think that married women getting captured and then having sex with their conquerors constitutes a natural act?

If you captured someone, don't you think that he or she would cooperate with you so that they wouldn't get harmed? They may follow your orders, but it is not because they want to; instead, because they feel the need to, else they get harmed. It would be force. If you don't think so, then you are in a bad state of mind.

Jaycee Dugard was abducted by Phillip Garrido. Joycee bore two daughters during the time of her captivity. Phillip Garrido was sentenced to 431 years imprisonment for kidnapping, rape, and imprisonment. Elizabeth Smart was kidnaped and raped almost daily during her captivity. Mitchell was sentenced to two life-terms in federal prison.

Samatar, just like Garrido and Mitchell, Mohammad and his followers captured and raped so many women. What difference would it have made if Joycee and Smart had said no to Garrido and Mitchell, respectively? The victims of Muhammad (and Garrido and Mitchell) were in no position to resist their captors.

This raises a serious problem for you now. If you are honest with yourself, you must recognize that your prophet was guilty of rape and this is the reason your co-religionists are behaving this way.

What you don't understand is that when I look at the hadith you bring up, that I look at it in context. You must admit that that certain hadith does not explicitly mention whether or not the women disagreed. Now, looking at context, I look for certain explicit cases of muslim men who do harm their slaves through punishment.

Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl. Thereupon Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap) but the prominent part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin, and we had but only one slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to set her free.

Now what do you see, you see that the prophet (pbuh) set the women free because the man slapped her. I agree that if you just look at that one hadith that you should be suspicious, but it is clear that the prophet forbade the harming of slaves. If he would not allow the slapping of a slave, do you honestly believe he would allow rape, I think not. There is more examples but this will suffice for now. And remember, you are in the affirmative of Muhammad (pbuh) allowing rape, therefore the evidence without a shadow of a doubt is rested on you.

What you don't understand is that when I look at the hadith you bring up, that I look at it in context. You must admit that that certain hadith does not explicitly mention whether or not the women disagreed."

Can you agree that you can't use this hadith to support your position since it is unclear according to your standards? You want to make a claim in support of your position but you also want to deny my position that the passage doesn't say that the women agreed. You want to have your cake and eat it too; but, you can't. I won't allow it.

I see that you didn't answer my questions. Instead you seem to be running away, which tells me that you would rather hide behind your pride instead of admitting that you are very likely wrong about your position. The passage neither says that the women did agree ,nor did it say that they didn't; so, we are at an impasse. So, the the next best position that we can take depends upon human reasoning. I will ask you again: if some of your female relatives were captured, would you think that they would be willing to have sex with their conquerors immediately after they were captured? Answer honestly, please.

"Now, looking at context, I look for certain explicit cases of muslim men who do harm their slaves through punishment."

What context are you looking for? Captives are at the mercy of their conquerors. They are in a subordinate position and have to comply with their superiors in order to avoid any harm. That is reality. Try putting your female relatives in the role that these captives were in and answer honestly. Just remember while growing up when your mother told you to do something that you didn't want to do, weren't you coerced to a certain point since you knew that there was some kind of penalty for not complying? This is exactly how instructions work with captives because they are in no position to dictate terms.

" Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl. Thereupon Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap) but the prominent part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin, and we had but only one slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to set her free."

This is not the hadith in discussion. You are conveniently switching the topic now. Go back to the hadith in discussion. The argument is not whether all slaves were treated the same or if some were treated well. We are talking about sexual relations with captives who have no power to resist the request of their conquerors unless they are freely permitted to decline. Remeber that the context was that these Muslim men were eager to have sex after being away from their wives. This hadith is a justification to permit them to commit adultery in order to satisfy their sexual urges. That is the reality of things.

" Now what do you see, you see that the prophet (pbuh) set the women free because the man slapped her."

We are not arguing that some slaves were freed or treated differently or indifferently, or even better than others. The topic has to do with improper sexual relations of the captured women and their freedom to reject sexual relations with their Muslim conquerors.

"I agree that if you just look at that one hadith that you should be suspicious, but it is clear that the prophet forbade the harming of slaves."

He also allowed sex with slaves who were still married, which constitutes adultery. But, he doesn't call it adultery either; so, what is your point really?

"If he would not allow the slapping of a slave, do you honestly believe he would allow rape, I think not."

Because the captured women were subordinates and could not say no without retaliation and perhaps death for not satisfying the man if he so desired. The slaves had no rights. They could be treated almost any way desired by the owners.

"There is more examples but this will suffice for now. And remember, you are in the affirmative of Muhammad (pbuh) allowing rape, therefore the evidence without a shadow of a doubt is rested on you."

I suppose that if you don't see the moral disconnect when the roles are reversed and your female relatives are the ones under your prophet's rules. It seems to be very difficult for Muslims to see that if they were subjected to the same treatment that their prophet carried out, they wouldn't be so quick to defend him. There is a good reason that Jesus said (paraphrased) "do unto others what you would want done unto you". If Muslims were forced to follow this rule, they would crying and screaming about unfairness, injustices, persecution, etc. How hypocritical of you as a Muslim.

It is absolutely dumbfounding how willfully ignorant you are. If you used even the slightest common sense and context you would have to conclude that they were not consenting. The women and the muslim men can be married. And Allah permitted rape of married captives which is also adultery! You are so brainwashed that you cannot reasonably conclude obvious facts. It is incredible the lengths and depths you will go to in order to ignore reality!

If a man can beat his wife for not submitting to sex, what do you think he can do to a slave or captive. A woman whom his right hand possesses. Allah ordained Muslims the permission to have sex with married captives. And Islam cannot redefine the term adultery. Adultery is sex with someone other than your spouse. Not sex with someone other than your spouse or slave and captives. this is a deception by Satan, Islams Allah, to make it seem as though a sin is permissible. Islam is a lie to steal your soul my deceived friend! Please start thinking for yourself! Are you out of your mind? You are suffering from a type of denial that I find disturbing.

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

"We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter" (Sahih Muslim 3371)

From Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 32/278. The hadeeth was narrated by Muslim, 1736.

So the wife should be admonished first, and warned against defiance (nushooz) and of the anger of Allaah and the curse of the angels. If she does not respond, then the husband should forsake her in her bed, and if she does not respond to that, then he may hit her in a manner that does not cause injury. If none of these steps are effective, then he may stop spending on her maintenance and clothing, and he has the right to divorce her or to allow her to separate from him by khula’ in return for some financial settlement, such as giving up the mahr.

Similarly a slave woman does not have the right to refuse her master’s requests unless she has a valid excuse. If she does that she is being disobedient and he has the right to discipline her in whatever manner he thinks is appropriate and is allowed in sharee’ah.

"Can you agree that you can't use this hadith to support your position since it is unclear according to your standards? You want to make a claim in support of your position but you also want to deny my position that the passage doesn't say that the women agreed. You want to have your cake and eat it too; but, you can't. I won't allow it."

NO, rather my purpose was to show that you cannot assume rape unless you have solid evidence that the women were against it. Think about it for a moment, the hadith does not describe how the women felt, therefore, you assume that they wanted nothing to do with men who captured their women. What you also must understand is that you cannot apply a 21st century mindset to one of 14 centuries ago. Now lets look at another scenario where a man named dharar captured and had sex with his captured women.

Sunan Al Bayhaqi, Volume 2, page 363, Hadith no. 18685

Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin Darestweh from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message to Umar'. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dharar was dead. (Khalid) said: 'Allah didn't want to disgrace Dharar'

As you read, he was about to be punished for stoning because he captured and had sex with her. But now we have a dillema, the hadith also is ambiguous as to whether she consented or rejected having sex with the man. And a companion like Omar knows Isla, and Muhammad (pbuh) better than we could ever know him. But why would he stone this man for doing something that the prophet allowed. Because he must have raped her.

Quote:What difference would it have made if Joycee and Smart had said no to Garrido and Mitchell, respectively? The victims of Muhammad (and Garrido and Mitchell) were in no position to resist their captors. end

Excellent, excellent point.Rape is determined by power relations and circumstance as much as it is by what the woman says or does not say.Rape is sexual aggression or intercourse by coercion.That coercion can take various forms.For instance, in 19th-century America, a good number, some say most, of Southern planters systematically increased their numbers of slaves by raping their female slaves.Most African Americans, as a result, have at least two white people among their ancestors.These relationships are called rape not because of anything the women might have said.They are called rape because of the relationship slavery imposed between the planter and his chattel property.Slavery, and the dynamic of chattel property are both alive and well in Islam.Shall we not accuse Muslim men who own and control women of rape?Oh yes, we shall.We do.Islam is profane.

I brought you two scenarios where it just explains the capturing of women and the having sexual intercourse with women. They were both ambiguous as to the exact detail of whether the women consented. In one hadith it was allowed, yet in the other the man was sentenced to be stoned to death. But how does Umar command the stoning of this man. Simple because in one scenario, the women must not have consented to this, and in the other scenario, they must have consented. Remember, when I look at the hadiths I also take into account what muhammad (pbuh) said about the treatment and clothing of slaves, to treat them like your brother, and how he dealt with the harming of slaves, and how the prophet commands us muslims to lower our gaze in front of women, and how women is one of our greatest desires and trials and to be aware of this. When you take all these hadiths into account and the hadith about Dharar, I think it is safe to assume that rape is not allowed in Islam.

@ Samatar No where does it say if the married woman consents. you possess them. You do not ask for consent to do something with something you own.

I dont know of any married woman who after being captured by an enemy is hortny and attracted to their captores.

Anyone who would come to this conclusion has an ulterior motive for thinking so backwardly.

TELL ME IF YOUR MOTHER, SISTERS, AUNTS, COUSINS, NIECES WOULD GET HORNY FOR THEIR CAPTORS! This is disgusting. I cant believe we are having this conversation. Its obvious to anyone who can objectively think for themselves!``

muslims should not be disappointed in the muslim men who did it but in allah who has given them peermission or command to subdue non muslims. muslims should be shameful about what quran teaches them or what example mohammad set for them. it is the true spirit of islam that i see in those men who committed this shameful act.

Search4Tuth said: “TELL ME IF YOUR MOTHER, SISTERS, AUNTS, COUSINS, NIECES WOULD GET HORNY FOR THEIR CAPTORS! This is disgusting. I cant believe we are having this conversation”.

A friend of mine once told me that when Muslims butcher (the halal thing) cows, they ask the cows’ consent. They ask the cow “may I kill you” in Arabic and simultaneously sprinkle a handful of water on the cow’s face. The cow, in response, shakes its head to get the water off its face and that shaking of head is taken as the cow’s consent to be killed. It has been observed that the cow shakes its head in the negative, indicating a no answer, but the Muslims take that as an affirmative nod.

Similarly, the kidnap victims consenting to being raped (just like the cow consenting to be killed) must be one of great things the religion of suicide bombers and heavenly brothels (oops I mean the religion peace) has brought to the world.

I brought you two scenarios where it just explains the capturing of women and the having sexual intercourse with women. They were both ambiguous as to the exact detail of whether the women consented. In one hadith it was allowed, yet in the other the man was sentenced to be stoned to death. But how does Umar command the stoning of this man. Simple because in one scenario, the women must not have consented to this, and in the other scenario, they must have consented. Remember, when I look at the hadiths I also take into account what muhammad (pbuh) said about the treatment and clothing of slaves, to treat them like your brother, and how he dealt with the harming of slaves, and how the prophet commands us muslims to lower our gaze in front of women, and how women is one of our greatest desires and trials and to be aware of this. When you take all these hadiths into account and the hadith about Dharar, I think it is safe to assume that rape is not allowed in Islam."

I agree with what Search 4 Truth said. You have to be twisted in the head to not see the direct implications. No woman in her right mind will agree to have sex after being captured, especially in a free and nonthreatening environment. If you were captured, you would try to agree as much as possible with those who captured you in order to survive. That is human nature. You are willing to compromise some of your moral/ethical positions for the sake of life and safety.

I duly note that you don't answer my questions that place the burden on you to rationalize and reason outside of the Qu'ran. What are you afraid of? Can't you engage and understand the implications under role reversals?

Women subjugated by foreigners (Muslims) are not going to want to have sexual relations with them, especially when their husbands are the ones they naturally have sexual relations with. Even you know that this is wrong from the Qu'ran which teaches females to guard themselves from sexual interactions with others than their husbands. Even your own moral compass (Qu'ran) shows that husband and wife are not open to sexual relations with others. Captivity has nothing to do with Allah's clear orders. It is funny how you are so willing to ignore even the teachings of the Qu'ran and Sunnah. Don't you think that other religions have some kind of sacred tradition(s) about marriage and sexual relations? Do you think that Islam is the only one with moral values? Have you ever thought of how Muslims are violating the moral values of others?

Women in Islam

American Freedom Law Center

America

The Truth about CAIR

FAQ Page

On this website, we engage Muslims and the foundations of Islam without trying to be "PC". We feel honesty is better than disguised language. As you can read on our FAQ, this is out of love, not out of hatred. Thanks, and we're looking forward to seeing your comments!